Teresa Ribera, after fines to technological ones: “The target reaction to our decision is childish” | Economy | EUROtoday

The first fines of the Digital Markets Regulation have been identified whereas the pinnacle of the choice, the vp of the European Commission, Teresa Ribera, in Mexico. From there, he explains that he wished it to be so to offer regular picture. “This week the trip was scheduled and it made no sense to delay decisions that were ready and can be taken with total naturalness,” he describes from the opposite aspect of the Atlantic in a phone dialog with the nation.

Ribera’s argument seeks to underline the fee’s response when requested if the applying of digital rules, each the markets (DMA) and the Services (DSA), are on the negotiation desk within the industrial battle with the United States: “Obviously, no.” The fines of this Wednesday to Apple, 500 million euros, already goal, 200 million, plus orders to alter particular points of their enterprise mannequin, search to use group requirements to corporations that function within the single market, defend.

“It is clearly something that is giving a lot of morbidity, but the answer is obviously not. We are bound by law and that law is the European.” But the regulation will be interpreted with kind of rigor. Ribera shortly cuts the interlocutor: “Of course, and this is interpreted and motivated, and explained how the amounts of fines have been decided proportionally to the condition, to the breach and the corrections and the corrections [que se imponen] to guarantee compliance with the law. It is not about imposing fines for imposing fines. ” [del derecho de la Competencia]. That is why it was concluded that it was essential to establish in a law the ex-before obligations. The DMA has its origin in the little efficacy that had very important sanctions to change the behavior of these actors. ”

The head of competition is thus on the passage of an extended interpretation in Brussels: these fines are low, especially when compared to other sanctions prior to the digital sector – on Google, one of 4,340 million was imposed -, so as not to disturb President Donald Trump and hinder commercial negotiations. “It’s a brand new customary [entró en vigor de forma escalonada entre 2022 y 2023]with what the time used to outline the habits that deserves sanction in no case exceeds a 12 months, subsequently it’s not one thing that has occurred. In addition, it is likely one of the first purposes and, subsequently, the precept of proportionality have to be utilized, not solely with the little execution and enforceability of those obligations, additionally with their first developments. Third, the 2 corporations have labored, I might say from the primary day [para buscar soluciones]. Goal was taken severely the necessity to adjust to European norms and has made enhancements. What has meant is that we have now closed some circumstances of the infraction procedures that had been open. ”

And regardless of this, purpose has had a really laborious response in opposition to Brussels with a extra political than enterprise: “The commission is trying to harm successful US companies while allowing Chinese and European signatures to operate with other standards. It is not just about the fine; the commission, forcing us to change our business model, imposes a multimillion -aid tariff to the finish line …”. The language utilized by the signature of Mark Zuckerberg seeks, blatantly, align with the worker by excellent members of the Trump administration.

“I would say that it is a bit puerile reaction,” Ribera exclaims when he heard this assertion. “I have not seen a similar reaction when the United States courts or when the US administration have made much harder decisions, even decisions that, without being directly related to these companies, have meant a loss of multimillionaire stock market value in recent weeks. That is, it seems to me that it is a slightly childish reaction, I suppose you look for another type of reaction,” he says.

The reply carries two depth masses: one in opposition to the corporate itself, purpose, and one other in opposition to huge tariffs. He insists on the “puerile” response. “Infant,” he’ll add later. But quickly Bruslense returns to argumentary: “European regulation applies to all those who exceed a certain billing threshold, number of consumers in the EU and take as a reference exclusively the European market, where these companies obtain approximately one third of their total global benefits. That is, it is a relevant market for them. If you want to operate in Europe logically they need to comply with European standards.”